Most consumer garments are made available for purchase in ready-to-wear stock sizes, for example, at retail outlets such as department or specialty stores. Consumers typically travel to one or more stores to estimate their garment size, then proceed through a trial-and-error process of trying on garments of different sizes close to their estimate until arriving at a size that fits best. While this process permits most people to obtain garments that overall fit well enough to wear, depending upon eccentricities in the body of the wearer a garment may properly fit one body part while improperly fitting another body part. For example, traditional dress shirts such as used for men's business attire are often available by neck size and arm length. However, discrepancies in shoulder broadness and girth, even between individuals sharing common neck sizes and sleeve lengths, can result in the shirt properly fitting a first individual and not fitting a second individual.
Currently available stock sized garments often present additional drawbacks. Although most manufacturers adopt standard numbered sizes or more subjective designations such as small, medium, large, etc., there can be a wide variation in the actual “size” of a garment produced by one manufacturer when compared to that of another. As a result, people frequently find that although a certain size of garment fits them when produced by one manufacturer, they require a different size when purchasing garments made from a different manufacturer.
Manufacturers have contributed to this problem by frequently introducing different lines of clothing under a single label or brand that purportedly are aimed at different classes of purchasers such as younger individuals versus older individuals or those of smaller or larger stature as compared to those of so-called normal stature. In such instances, although manufacturers retain traditional size designations such as medium, etc., the garments so designated from one line fit and are dimensioned differently than those from another line. Manufacturers routinely offer little or no clue to the consumer as to these differences other than occasional use of highly subjective terms such as sport, athletic, junior or petite to indicate such size differences. It is not uncommon, therefore, for consumers to be somewhat perplexed or exasperated as they find that a garment from a particular manufacturer that bears “their” size does not fit them only to be told by a salesperson that despite the size designations on the garment, that the garment is from a particular line of that manufacturer that runs bigger or smaller.
These problems are compounded by the fact that pricing pressures in the retail marketplace require many garments to be produced faster than in the past and/or under less stringent garment to garment quality control standards. The consistency and, therefore, reliability of size designations even for garments of a designated size from the same producer have suffered. It is not uncommon, for example, to find a variance of up to an inch or more in the waistband or length of jeans from a single manufacturer that purports to be the same size and style. All these trends have resulted in increased consumer confusion and dissatisfaction as they are forced to deal with the hidden intricacies of what are supposed to be ready-to-wear stock sizes to the potential detriment of clothing manufacturer's sales figures.
The current problems that proliferate so-called ready-to-wear stock size garments are further compounded by the popularity of the use of the internet for clothing purchases and current fashion trends. It has become commonplace for consumers to try to save time and effort by using the internet as a shopping tool rather than traveling to retail locations. This trend has included shopping for clothing. While the internet can provide many pictures of clothing and verbal descriptions of how a garment may fit, consumers will not get a true idea of the fit of the garment until they purchase it, receive it and try it on.
The problems with existing stock-sized garments have led many internet shoppers to only be willing to consider purchasing garments over the internet from manufacturers or manufacturer's style lines that they already own, neglecting to consider either other manufacturers or styles. This consumer behavior presupposes that a given manufacturer does not change the cut or sizing of its garments in general or of a particular style line, which frequently is not the case. The verbiage and charts frequently offered on web sites to help a customer determine the appropriate size to purchase usually have no effect since consumers lacking tailoring experience usually do not bother to go through a complete measurement before they make a purchase of clothing or they are confused or daunted by the task of attempting to decipher the directions to determine their size.
At a minimum, these problems associated with internet clothing shopping can result increase in frustration and wasted time and expense as a consumer has to send purchases back one or more times to the manufacturer in favor of a different size until this trial and error process hopefully results in obtaining an appropriately fitting garment. If the consumer's level of frustration is higher, this process may lead to a consumer, who might have been a loyal customer of a given brand, to either no longer shop for clothing via the internet or no longer continue their purchases from that particular manufacturer.
Current fashion trends further exacerbate the problems associated with so-called stock-size garments. Stock sizes impair the ability of consumers to obtain a garment that appropriately fits their particular anatomy in a way in which they desire. The variability in the look, style and fit of clothing has continued to vary over a wide spectrum. Fashion trends have caused clothing styles to run the gamut from extremely oversized garments to virtually skin-tight form-fitting garments. Some fashion styles dictate a tight fit in one area of a garment and a loose fit in another.
These realities have made sizing designations further unreliable. For example, a consumer may desire extremely high or low rise for a pair of pants or jeans to accomplish a given style or look. This can cause the waistband of the garment, for example, to end up riding either across or very low on the hips in one instance to other instances where they are above or very high on the hips in another. Similarly, the purchaser of such garments may desire the crotch of the garment to very closely follow the contour of the body or provide a considerable space of up to several inches between the wearer's crotch and the location of the crotch on the garment. These trends have rendered many traditional garment such as the inseam measurement relatively useless since these measurements depend upon the height or location of the waistband on the wearer and the location of the rise. Traditional inseam measurements virtually never represent a standard measurement that is of any use in crafting such varied custom fashion clothing. To a lesser extent, the reliability of crotch outseam and length measurements has also been lessened by these trends since they depend completely upon the location of the waistband in relation to the wearer's hips.
In order to overcome the problems associated with stock-sized garments as set forth above, consumers who are more discerning about their clothing and clothing fit or have unusual requirements in this regard have at times rejected stock-sized items in favor of custom-made garments. A major benefit of custom-made garments is the ability to have them tailored to complement the particular body size and style of the individual. However, custom garments are typically much more expensive than standard or ready-to-wear garments and usually require a extended time period for production of the garment. The extra expense of custom garments stems in part from the fact that production of such garments requires the time and expertise required by a skilled tailor, working with a tape measure, to accurately measure the person for whom the garment is being customized. In addition to the expense, consumer who chooses the custom garment resigns himself to the fact that he can not accomplish the process himself and will need to make one or more trips to a tailor to accomplish the measuring process alone. In return for the additional time and money invested for the custom-made garment, the consumer commonly expects precise fit and pleasing comfort in the tailored clothing. It is, therefore, imperative that the tailor have adequate tools to take precise measurements and to fit the consumer with a garment that meets the consumer's expectations.
Generally, a tailor begins a custom tailoring process by measuring his or her customer to determine various body dimensions for use in production of the custom garment. Typically, this measurement process is performed with a standard measuring tape, which the tailor applies along and around various body parts of the individual. Tailors usually work from certain “standard measurements” such as chest, waist, hip and inseam measurements. These so-called standard measurements, however, are rendered meaningless if the wearer, for example, intends to locate the waistband of the finished garment at a point other than where the tailor has taken his traditional waist measurement.
Another problem associated with this process is that tape measures are made of a different material than the material of the new custom garment and must be held in place by the tailor while the individual being measured remains still to obtain a measurement. Due to the differences in material and dimension, the texture and sensation of a tape measure about the consumer's body part, such as the waistline, are not accurately representative of the visual and tactile sensations that the actual garment material will provide. Tape measures are also usually not capable of staying secured, as a waistband would, without the tailor holding it in place. The finished tailored garment may, therefore, provide the consumer with a significantly different feel and appearance than the consumer anticipated from the measuring tape. As a consequence, even though a finished garment is tailored commensurate with the specifications of the customer using measurements taken with the measuring tape, the consumer may, upon trying on the finished garment learn that the selected material is ill-fitting or uncomfortable to wear.
The differences between the tape measure and the garment material may raise additional problems, especially in the measurement of the waist size and length of pants. Because a measuring tape has a different appearance and feel than the garment material, the consumer often finds it difficult to identify, using the tape measure, the exact height at which he prefers the waistband of the pants on his or her body. Errors in judgment of waistband location by the tailor or consumer during the measurement process are reflected in the tailored garment when the consumer tries on the pants but places the waistband at a different height than originally estimated using the tape measure. Similar problems can result from the fact that the tape measure does not have the same bulk or drape of the garment material when attempting, for example, to obtain accurate crotch or outseam measurements. Such judgment errors, whether attributable to the consumer or tailor, cause the tailor to bear additional time and expense in altering the garment or may even require the garment to be remade. This, of course, serves to increase consumer frustration, delays and expense.
A further problem associated with tailoring using a conventional measuring tape is that the tailoring process involves taking multiple measurements that are interrelated with one another. For example, when measuring for the waistband for a pair of pants, the height on the customer's waist at which the measuring tape is placed will directly affect pants length and crotch measurements, which typically start at the waistband. It is therefore important that pants leg measurement start from the same location where the waistband measurement was taken and not from some standard waist measurement location.
The prior art has attempted, with very limited success, to address some of the aforementioned drawbacks. One such attempt is found in U.S. Pat. No. 1,248,035 to Taylor, which discloses a measuring device comprising a belt that fits about the waist, suspended measuring tapes slidingly engaged to opposite sides of the belt, and a strap slidingly engaged to the rear of the belt.
The measuring device of the Taylor patent has several drawbacks. For example, the loops that engage the tape measures and strap to the belt may be prone to slippage or bending the belt when tensioned thereby compromising the accuracy of measurements. The loops also are not readily detachable from the belt when the belt is encircled about the waist of the user. As a consequence, the measuring device of the Taylor patent has limited convenience, and can be difficult to use in taking certain obstructed measurements accurately, such as front and rear rise. Additionally the buckle of the Taylor patent is substantially the same as a standard belt buckle. As such, it is not infinitely adjustable and is prone to providing inaccurate waist measurements.
The Taylor patent further fails to utilize the material and dimensions of the corresponding portion of the ultimate garment. Additionally, the use and arrangement of multiple measuring strips as depicted in the Taylor patent require the use of different strips for each separate measurement, limit the measuring device to pants fitting, and render the device impractical for measuring for other garments, such as shirts, jackets, and hats.